Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[Dad2three]

tax law that allows companies to deduct unlimited amounts for performance-based compensation.
Hold on one second....WalMart is following the tax law????
Outrageous!!!!!
Moron.

BENDING the law they bought? Yep

You forgot to post a link to Walmart's purchase of that law which, according to your source, "was put in place in 1993 in order to discourage excessive pay..."

My guess? You're simply spewing the same old baseless loony leftist hate for all things successful.

As a disclaimer I admit that my family has benefitted nicely from having Walmart stock in our retirement portfolios for the past 20 years. Thank you Walmart.

YOU deny the plutocrats have bought DC? SERIOUSLY? lol'

So I will take that to mean your claim was just more whiny, sniveling, loony leftist BS.
Why am I not surprised.

Your surrender accepted Bubs

 

[Dad2three]

Wrong. Coal is being attacked by the Obama administration and his minions. They already shut down many plants and forced the remaining open ones to invest millions of dollars in greener technology. It had nothing to do with natural gas because the US is the Saudi Arabia of coal.

Coal mines were shut down due to safety violations.

Natural gas prices dipped to historically low levels beating coal prices.

And why did natural gas prices drop? That's right, fracking:

Obama's Abandoned Power Plants
Ken Blackwell | Sep 28, 2012


At least 3 coal plants announced closing since Obama's energy speech

By ASHE SCHOW • 7/11/13 12:00 AM
At least 3 coal plants announced closing since Obama's energy speech

This is true. The wealthy never became wealthier.

True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.

Planned coal-power closings won't cut CO2 much

Planned coal-power closings won't cut CO2 much

Flurry of Coal Power Plant Shutdowns Expected by 2016

Flurry of Coal Power Plant Shutdowns Expected by 2016

Historically

Commodities: Latest Natural Gas Price & Chart

Future

US natural gas glut prompts price warning - FT.com

Quit blaming Obama when the market is the bad guy.

Ah .. got it!
When things go wrong for a Dem admin it's the "market" but when it happens to a Repub admin it's the Repub.
Stupid, low-brow, knuckle-draggin' lefties ... America's cross to bear.

Weird, elect guys who "don't believe"Gov't can be the regulator, then have guys like Harding/Coolidge/Ronnnie/Dubya HOSE US with Banksters and their "free market" BS, and you are shocked?

 

[Dad2three]

This is true. The wealthy never became wealthier.

True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.

Really? And just how did Republicans accomplish that?

Layoffs and business closures to shift monies to the market.

You're talking businesses. I asked how did Republicans do that; you know, as in Republican politicians and policies?

REAGANOMICS

 

[Dad2three]

This is true. The wealthy never became wealthier.

True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.

Really? And just how did Republicans accomplish that?

Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.

Oh, is that why? (LOL)

Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government? Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.

You mean the nine months they had a fiberfill proof majority? AS the economy tumbled off the edge?

The Myth of Democratic Super Majority.

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.

It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.

The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period, insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during six years of Republican control. Here are the details:

 

[easyt65]

Taxes should NOT be raised another dime until out-of-control criminal spending in Washington STOPS.

For Example:
$500 MILLION US Tax Dollars went to Solyndra alone (1 of 13 of Obama's 'pet' alternative energy projects funded by his bogus Stimulus Bill) WHILE they were filing for bankruptcy. The following week, after receiving the money, they fired over 1,000 workers. It is now being reported (duh) how Solyndra DEFRAUDED the government in order to get that money.

The media is reporting that the company 'mis-represented it's status and mis-filed reports. yeah, in other words, this administration with the help of the biased media is trying to make it sound like what happened was a clerical error rather than a CRIME, which is what it is.

Turns out that Solyndra was heavily invested in by big time Obama donors, and the $500 million illegally funneled to Solyndra was to ensure his donors did not lose nay money in the deal...while American tax payers lost the $500 million that went to Obama donors. (As I see it, Obama and his donors owe the US Tax Payers $500 Million!)

The entire Stimulus Bill, touted as a jobs bill, was one big Liberal Progressive Tax Payer-Funded fiscally criminal 'raping' of the US tax payer to benefit themselves and their supporters.
- The bill contained over 7,000 pieces of DNC-Only Pork, and in the end cost over $742,000 PER JOB 'created / saved'...and many of those jobs 'created / saved' numbers were padded. One company reported that the Obama administration claimed to have saved more jobs than the total number of people who worked at the company!

There is $500 Million, in this one case alone, that oculd have been used far more efficiently ...and LEGALLY. So Not one more d@mn dime in tax increases until shi'ite like THIS is eliminated! They have enough - they just need to start using it for what is best for this country and NOT what is best for themselves and their parties!

 

[Dad2three]

The idea that the housing bubble was created by Dems is ridiculous. Fanny and Freddie's share of the real estate market went from 75% to 25% in 2003 when corrupt, crony Boooshie regulators allowed private firms to rate toxic at A+ and allow it to be bundled, insured and sold around the world duh. Barney was one of hundreds of Dem and Pub pols who told people not to worry in 2008 duh. Trying to tamp down a panic.

They did get into it late and did less than a quarter of it, as you can see from the bailout costs. The law you blame Clinton for was a Pub bill he just signed. It took corrupt Boooshie regulators to pervert it and cause the bubble.

No because I have plenty of articles supporting the point that Democrats were the ones who initiated the bubble. You can't force banks to give loans to unqualified borrowers and expect a decent outcome. Banks sell those loans because they know they are bad, so they toss them out into the market as bundled securities which investors expected to be solid.

I won't go as far as to say that GW nor the Republicans had nothing to do with it, but to say it was their fault entirely is ridiculous. The Republicans had no interest in getting more blacks into their own homes. Blacks vote Democrat. That would be like Democrats promoting the NRA.

What this video shows (and I have more just like it) is how Democrats fought tooth and nail to make sure F and F had no oversight by our government, and how Republicans knew well in advance how precarious these practices were. Yes, Republicans tried to stop it while Democrats promoted it.

2002: Bush's speech to the White House Conference on Increasing Minority Homeownership


We've got to work to knock down the barriers that have created a homeownership gap.

I set an ambitious goal. It's one that I believe we can achieve. It's a clear goal, that by the end of this decade we'll increase the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families (HE LATER INCREASED IT TO 7 MILLION BUBS) (Applause.) …


White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire


“We can put light where there’s darkness, and hope where there’s despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home.” — President Bush, Oct. 15, 2002


here are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.

But the story of how we got here is partly one of Mr. Bush’s own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.

From his earliest days in office, Mr. Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own home with his conviction that markets do best when let alone.

He pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minorities, an initiative that dovetailed with his ambition to expand the Republican tent — and with the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

As I stated, Republicans participated in all this, but were not the creators. Democrats started this mess.

Now if you want to post one-sided stories, I can do the same if you'd like. I have dozens of them in my Housing Collapse folder if you'd like to take a look at.

SURE BUBS, YOU MEAN YOU HAVE OUT OF CONTEXT VIDS WITH DEMS WHO COULDN'T STOP DUBYA'S BUBBLE IF THEY WANTED TOO? And?

THAT was the Dems fault? lol

 

[easyt65]

...and at nearly $1 million a pop for vacations, like everyone else, the Obamas should have to pay for their own vacations, not force tax payers to do so. I don't know about YOU, but the company I work for doesn't pay for my vacations, especially not half a dozen a year!

 

[Dad2three]

Damn Bush and those republicans for not figuring out how to stop the housing industry from failing when all of those creative loans forced by Clinton came due.
and Damn Bush and those republicans for not trying to convince the democrats that the crash was coming.
Oh why couldnt they just listen to the dems like Barney Franks when he told them the industry was in good shape.

Oh come on. You know how it works by now!

Obama spent more money than all other Presidents combined, but that was Bush's fault.

Bush was President during the housing bubble that was created by Democrats, but that was Bush's fault too.

Slowest recovery in recent history because Bush screwed up the economy so badly.

We have lower unemployment thanks to Obama.

Obama pulls all troops out of Iraq, the left praises their great President.

Whoops! ISIS takes over Iraq because of no US troops. That's Bush's fault.

MORE RIGHT WING GARBAGE. Shocking



"We crashed the economy but we don't like the way you tried to fix it." - GOP.

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.


FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times



Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

FBI ? Financial Crimes Report 2005


The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and GOP CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.



"Those selling the CDS's would not have been able to sell them if they had been required by regulators to maintain standard insurance reserves."


2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 35-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street


BUSH REGULATORS ON WALL STREET IN 2004 WITH A CHAINSAW 'CUTTING' REGULATIONS

We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home,” the President(DUBYA) said in a 2002 speech. “We can change the print, and we've got to.”


Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding:

2007 $1.3 trillion

Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding in 2003: $332 billion

Percentage increase from 2003: 292%



FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Actually you idiot congress with Bush crashed the economy and that includes you saviour the man who wishes to fund terrorism barrack obama

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Nope it was the BANKSTERS, AGAIN. Weird how Ronnie allowed the S&L crisis to happen AFTER the regulators warned him THEN Dubya did the same thing? Hmm almost like they don't "believe in Gov't" or Gov't regulators?



Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf


WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF REGULATORS (FBI, SEC, HUD, ETC) DURING THIS PERIOD


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Dad2three]

This is true. The wealthy never became wealthier.

True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.

Really? And just how did Republicans accomplish that?

Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.

The economy under Reagan was far superior then the lack of one we have under Obama. That is just a fact. To bad you idiots are so selfish you don't want to heed the truth

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

You mean the start of a Biz cycle upswing AND he spent like a drunken sailor AS he gutted tax revenues? Shocking

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

$2.7 TRILLION BUBS

from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988.

Good, you don't deny Reagan increased revenues by $2.7+ trillion which was used to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!

Tax rates as a percent of taxable earnings

1980 8.100%

1988-89 15.020%


FICA & SECA Tax Rates

Good, you don't deny Reagan increased revenues by $2.7+ trillion

Over what time frame? As compared to what?

which was used to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!

Tax receipts were $599 billion in 1981, $991 billion in 1989.
What was the cost of the tax cuts for the rich?

Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each

What were their loss carryovers from 2008?

DOESN'T FUKKNN MATTER. YOU CALLED SOMEONE A LIAR. I proved you are full of it


IF the GOP was on board with the Buffett rule, ALL would've had a min 30% fed tax rate!!!

YOU CALLED SOMEONE A LIAR.

Yeah, onepercenter lies about his income and his trust and his taxes.

IF the GOP was on board with the Buffett rule, ALL would've had a min 30% fed tax rate!!!

Not if their carryover losses made their net income zero for the year.

Weird how YOU are NEVER honest? I'm shocked.

Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!

Yep, MOST of the increased revenues were inflation. Next was increasing SS taxes, next was new employees. Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.

However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the middle class/poor which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!



Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

1. 
   
2. If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income, such as wages, up to an annual limit of $3,000, or $1,500 if you are married filing separately.
3. If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.

MILLIONAIRES? lol

Ten Important Facts About Capital Gains and Losses

Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years

I know, from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988. Awful!

to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!

Wait, are you claiming that government took the Social Security money, bought Treasury bonds with it and then spent the money? You can't be serious!

Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!

How much less? How do you know? Show all your calculations.

"It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

So you can cut taxes by $100 billion and only lose $60 billion in revenue?
Sounds like a win-win.

If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income

But we're not talking about "other income", are we?

If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.

Weird, it's almost like they're saying you could lose $300 million in 2008 and carry that loss over into 2009 to eliminate the tax liability on $200 million in 2009 income.

Social Security & Medicare Tax Rates


Tax rates as a percent of taxable earnings


Rate for employees and employers, each

1980 Total 6.130% (TOTAL12.26%)


1990 and later 7.650% (15.3%)


THAT'S AN INCREASE FROM 12.26% TO 15.3% BUBS


USE REAL NUMBERS AND MATH NEXT TIME

HE ALSO TOOK THE SELF EMPLOYED FROM 8.1% TO 15.3% BUBS


FICA & SECA Tax Rates

LIKE I SAID, RONNIE INCREASED SS TAXES BY $2.7+ TRILLION OVER THE NEXT THIRTY YEARS TO HIDE THE COSTS OF HIS TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!

1980 Total 6.130% (TOTAL12.26%)

Why would you use these numbers? Oh, right, it's because you're a moron.

Reagan didn't pass Social Security Reform until April 1983.
The rates before then were already law. 5.4% for individuals.
Which rose to 6.06 in 1988 and 6.2% in 1990.
LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

$2.7 TRILLION BUBS

from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988.

Good, you don't deny Reagan increased revenues by $2.7+ trillion which was used to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!

Tax rates as a percent of taxable earnings

1980 8.100%

1988-89 15.020%


FICA & SECA Tax Rates

Good, you don't deny Reagan increased revenues by $2.7+ trillion

Over what time frame? As compared to what?

which was used to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!

Tax receipts were $599 billion in 1981, $991 billion in 1989.
What was the cost of the tax cuts for the rich?

Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each

What were their loss carryovers from 2008?

DOESN'T FUKKNN MATTER. YOU CALLED SOMEONE A LIAR. I proved you are full of it


IF the GOP was on board with the Buffett rule, ALL would've had a min 30% fed tax rate!!!

YOU CALLED SOMEONE A LIAR.

Yeah, onepercenter lies about his income and his trust and his taxes.

IF the GOP was on board with the Buffett rule, ALL would've had a min 30% fed tax rate!!!

Not if their carryover losses made their net income zero for the year.

Weird how YOU are NEVER honest? I'm shocked.

Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!

Yep, MOST of the increased revenues were inflation. Next was increasing SS taxes, next was new employees. Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.

However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the middle class/poor which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!



Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

1. 
   
2. If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income, such as wages, up to an annual limit of $3,000, or $1,500 if you are married filing separately.
3. If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.

MILLIONAIRES? lol

Ten Important Facts About Capital Gains and Losses

Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years

I know, from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988. Awful!

to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!

Wait, are you claiming that government took the Social Security money, bought Treasury bonds with it and then spent the money? You can't be serious!

Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!

How much less? How do you know? Show all your calculations.

"It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

So you can cut taxes by $100 billion and only lose $60 billion in revenue?
Sounds like a win-win.

If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income

But we're not talking about "other income", are we?

If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.

Weird, it's almost like they're saying you could lose $300 million in 2008 and carry that loss over into 2009 to eliminate the tax liability on $200 million in 2009 income.

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.

However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the middle class/poor which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!



Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

So taxpayers keep more of their money than government loses.
Win-win!!!

 

[Dad2three]

We have the highest corporate taxes in the world and one of the slowest economies in the industrialized world. Does it never dawn on you selfish progressives that the two are connected?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Weird the GOP will not sign onto Obama proposal of almost 3 years of dropping rates to 285 from 35% and getting rid of loopholes? Use extra revenues to rebuild infrastructure?

Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High

The interesting thing about the corporate rate is that corporate profits, as a percentage of GDP last year were the highest or just about the highest in the last 50 years. They were ten and a fraction percent of GDP. That’s higher than we’ve seen in 50 years. The corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP were 1.2 percent, $180 billion. That’s just about the lowest we’ve seen. So our corporate tax rate last year, effectively, in terms of taxes paid for the United States, was around 12 percent, which is well below those existing in most of the industrialized countries around the world. So it is a myth that American corporations are paying 35 percent or anything like it…Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness.


Buffett is absolutely right to note that while corporate profits are at a record high, corporate taxes are at a nearly half-century low. When looking at the rate that corporations actually pay (as opposed to the statutory rate that only exists on paper), the U.S. has the second-lowest corporate tax rate in the developed world, and raises far less than other nations in corporate tax revenue.


Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High

US economy one of the slowest? lol


Sure Bubs, sure

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is true. The wealthy never became wealthier.

True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.

Really? And just how did Republicans accomplish that?

Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.

Oh, is that why? (LOL)

Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government? Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.

You mean the nine months they had a fiberfill proof majority? AS the economy tumbled off the edge?

The Myth of Democratic Super Majority.

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.

It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.

The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period, insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during six years of Republican control. Here are the details:

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010.

Give the next Republican president 59 seats in the Senate and 257 seats in the House for 2 years and see who whines more, the Dems or the Republicans. LOL!

 

[Dad2three]

The idea that the housing bubble was created by Dems is ridiculous. Fanny and Freddie's share of the real estate market went from 75% to 25% in 2003 when corrupt, crony Boooshie regulators allowed private firms to rate toxic at A+ and allow it to be bundled, insured and sold around the world duh. Barney was one of hundreds of Dem and Pub pols who told people not to worry in 2008 duh. Trying to tamp down a panic.

They did get into it late and did less than a quarter of it, as you can see from the bailout costs. The law you blame Clinton for was a Pub bill he just signed. It took corrupt Boooshie regulators to pervert it and cause the bubble.

No because I have plenty of articles supporting the point that Democrats were the ones who initiated the bubble. You can't force banks to give loans to unqualified borrowers and expect a decent outcome. Banks sell those loans because they know they are bad, so they toss them out into the market as bundled securities which investors expected to be solid.

I won't go as far as to say that GW nor the Republicans had nothing to do with it, but to say it was their fault entirely is ridiculous. The Republicans had no interest in getting more blacks into their own homes. Blacks vote Democrat. That would be like Democrats promoting the NRA.

What this video shows (and I have more just like it) is how Democrats fought tooth and nail to make sure F and F had no oversight by our government, and how Republicans knew well in advance how precarious these practices were. Yes, Republicans tried to stop it while Democrats promoted it.

2002: Bush's speech to the White House Conference on Increasing Minority Homeownership


We've got to work to knock down the barriers that have created a homeownership gap.

I set an ambitious goal. It's one that I believe we can achieve. It's a clear goal, that by the end of this decade we'll increase the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families (HE LATER INCREASED IT TO 7 MILLION BUBS) (Applause.) …


White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire


“We can put light where there’s darkness, and hope where there’s despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home.” — President Bush, Oct. 15, 2002


here are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.

But the story of how we got here is partly one of Mr. Bush’s own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.

From his earliest days in office, Mr. Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own home with his conviction that markets do best when let alone.

He pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minorities, an initiative that dovetailed with his ambition to expand the Republican tent — and with the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

As I stated, Republicans participated in all this, but were not the creators. Democrats started this mess.

Now if you want to post one-sided stories, I can do the same if you'd like. I have dozens of them in my Housing Collapse folder if you'd like to take a look at.

YOUR inability to refute FACTS are noted Bubs


Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."

Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule(2004)
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans (2004)
Lowering down payment requirements to 0% (2004)
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets (2004)
Giving away 40,000 free down payments per year (2004-2007)
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING (2004)


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


LET ME GUESS? You have vids of Barney Frank, minority member of the GOP House where simple majority ruled, saying stuff? AND? LOL

 

[Dad2three]

True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.

Really? And just how did Republicans accomplish that?

Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.

Oh, is that why? (LOL)

Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government? Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.

You mean the nine months they had a fiberfill proof majority? AS the economy tumbled off the edge?

The Myth of Democratic Super Majority.

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.

It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.

The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period, insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during six years of Republican control. Here are the details:

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010.

Give the next Republican president 59 seats in the Senate and 257 seats in the House for 2 years and see who whines more, the Dems or the Republicans. LOL!

Glad you agree, the Dems DIDN'T have a super majority to pass the bills they wanted, EXCEPT when the US economy was teetering on the brink after 8 years of Dubya/GOP policy. Thanks

 

[Dad2three]

Good, you don't deny Reagan increased revenues by $2.7+ trillion which was used to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!

Tax rates as a percent of taxable earnings

1980 8.100%

1988-89 15.020%


FICA & SECA Tax Rates

Good, you don't deny Reagan increased revenues by $2.7+ trillion

Over what time frame? As compared to what?

which was used to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!

Tax receipts were $599 billion in 1981, $991 billion in 1989.
What was the cost of the tax cuts for the rich?

DOESN'T FUKKNN MATTER. YOU CALLED SOMEONE A LIAR. I proved you are full of it


IF the GOP was on board with the Buffett rule, ALL would've had a min 30% fed tax rate!!!

YOU CALLED SOMEONE A LIAR.

Yeah, onepercenter lies about his income and his trust and his taxes.

IF the GOP was on board with the Buffett rule, ALL would've had a min 30% fed tax rate!!!

Not if their carryover losses made their net income zero for the year.

Weird how YOU are NEVER honest? I'm shocked.

Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!

Yep, MOST of the increased revenues were inflation. Next was increasing SS taxes, next was new employees. Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.

However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the middle class/poor which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!



Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

1. 
   
2. If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income, such as wages, up to an annual limit of $3,000, or $1,500 if you are married filing separately.
3. If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.

MILLIONAIRES? lol

Ten Important Facts About Capital Gains and Losses

Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years

I know, from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988. Awful!

to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!

Wait, are you claiming that government took the Social Security money, bought Treasury bonds with it and then spent the money? You can't be serious!

Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!

How much less? How do you know? Show all your calculations.

"It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

So you can cut taxes by $100 billion and only lose $60 billion in revenue?
Sounds like a win-win.

If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income

But we're not talking about "other income", are we?

If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.

Weird, it's almost like they're saying you could lose $300 million in 2008 and carry that loss over into 2009 to eliminate the tax liability on $200 million in 2009 income.

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.

However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the middle class/poor which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!



Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

So taxpayers keep more of their money than government loses.
Win-win!!!

More of their money? Sure, EXCEPT Ronnie just ran up the credit card! You teach your kids to do that crap too? Moron

 

[francoHFW]

This is true. The wealthy never became wealthier.

True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.

Really? And just how did Republicans accomplish that?

Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.

Oh, is that why? (LOL)

Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government? Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.

For THIRTEEN DAYS, dupe, in the middle of the GOP world meltdown. I wonder, brainwashed functional moron...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Really? And just how did Republicans accomplish that?

Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.

Oh, is that why? (LOL)

Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government? Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.

You mean the nine months they had a fiberfill proof majority? AS the economy tumbled off the edge?

The Myth of Democratic Super Majority.

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.

It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.

The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period, insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during six years of Republican control. Here are the details:

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010.

Give the next Republican president 59 seats in the Senate and 257 seats in the House for 2 years and see who whines more, the Dems or the Republicans. LOL!

Glad you agree, the Dems DIDN'T have a super majority to pass the bills they wanted, EXCEPT when the US economy was teetering on the brink after 8 years of Dubya/GOP policy. Thanks

Boohoo, they only had 59 seats in the Senate.
How could we expect the smartest president ever to accomplish anything with only 59.

Here's a box of tissues for you and another for Obama, you need them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Good, you don't deny Reagan increased revenues by $2.7+ trillion

Over what time frame? As compared to what?

which was used to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich!

Tax receipts were $599 billion in 1981, $991 billion in 1989.
What was the cost of the tax cuts for the rich?

YOU CALLED SOMEONE A LIAR.

Yeah, onepercenter lies about his income and his trust and his taxes.

IF the GOP was on board with the Buffett rule, ALL would've had a min 30% fed tax rate!!!

Not if their carryover losses made their net income zero for the year.

Weird how YOU are NEVER honest? I'm shocked.

Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!

Yep, MOST of the increased revenues were inflation. Next was increasing SS taxes, next was new employees. Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.

However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the middle class/poor which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!



Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

1. 
   
2. If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income, such as wages, up to an annual limit of $3,000, or $1,500 if you are married filing separately.
3. If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.

MILLIONAIRES? lol

Ten Important Facts About Capital Gains and Losses

Ronnie increased SS taxes over the next 32 years

I know, from 5.4% in 1982 to 6.06% in 1988. Awful!

to the tune of excess payments to the trust funds of $2.7+ trillion, to hide the costs of his tax cuts for the rich. Gov't spent it!

Wait, are you claiming that government took the Social Security money, bought Treasury bonds with it and then spent the money? You can't be serious!

Over Ronnie's term, taxes were less than what WOULD'VE came in IF he hadn't gutted taxes for the rich!

How much less? How do you know? Show all your calculations.

"It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

So you can cut taxes by $100 billion and only lose $60 billion in revenue?
Sounds like a win-win.

If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income

But we're not talking about "other income", are we?

If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.

Weird, it's almost like they're saying you could lose $300 million in 2008 and carry that loss over into 2009 to eliminate the tax liability on $200 million in 2009 income.

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Real revenues under Reagan fell for a number of years and lagged behind GDP. There was no relative increase at all.

However, Reagan raised taxes a number of times, on the middle class/poor which offset the damage to revenues of his tax cuts for the rich!



Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

So taxpayers keep more of their money than government loses.
Win-win!!!

More of their money? Sure, EXCEPT Ronnie just ran up the credit card! You teach your kids to do that crap too? Moron

More of their money?

Did I stutter you stupid fuck?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is true. The wealthy never became wealthier.

True. And thanks to Republicans the middle class was left behind.

Really? And just how did Republicans accomplish that?

Defending Reaganist bs to the death. No min wage up, no investment in infrastructure jobs, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging or college costs...or ANYTHING ELSE. STUPID.

Oh, is that why? (LOL)

Then tell us all, why didn't the Democrats do all this when they had total control of our federal government? Oh, that's right, Commie Care was their only objective.

For THIRTEEN DAYS, dupe, in the middle of the GOP world meltdown. I wonder, brainwashed functional moron...

For THIRTEEN DAYS

We only had 60 Senate seats for 13 days, for the rest of the 2 years we only had 59.

Unfair!!!! Waaahhhhhhh!!!!!